Blaxploitation and Ganja and Hess

It was interesting to explore the phenomenon of Blaxploitation this week, and to consider how the unorthodox Ganja and Hess works into this preexisting framework. One stark difference I noticed was the absence of a real "other/monstrous" and "good/normal/human" dichotomy. As Benshoff observes, "...there are few 'normal' people in the film--no professor Van Helsing out to kill the vampires...". Instead, the film's focus remains with the antiheroes. The narrative structure and pacing of the film is also quite unusual, as drawn out philosophical musings are interspersed with violent killings, and clinically edited fast-paced sequences. The lack of a true "good" and "evil" in the film can make it at times appear confusing, but moreso compelling in its deviance from the norm. The non-linear and open structure of the film lends itself to many different interpretations. 

According to Benshoff, "In general, blaxploitation films depicted a stronger, more militant image of African Americans who triumphed over (frequently racist) white antagonists." In Ganja and Hess however, none of the main characters are white. It is not, at least explicitly, a story of black uprising against white oppressors. The film however explores many nuanced topics through its slow, deliberate pacing and rhythmic dialogue. Addiction appears to be a recurring theme: Ganja's thirst for blood being the most obvious, but also extending to sex and, apparently, religion. One of my favorite quotes from the movie, and one that Benshoff uses in his article is when Ganja utters the phrase: "The only perversions that can be comfortably condemned are the perversions of others. I will persist and survive without God's or society's sanction. I will not be tortured. I will not be punished. I will not be guilty." The so-called "perversions of others" could be interpreted as the "other," black, queer, or any number of marginalized identities. The very act of labeling such a state "perverse" could be seen as condemnation in itself. More overtly, it could be seen as a rallying cry for black Americans, resilient in their determination not to be brought down by white society. On the opposite side of the coin, Ganja could be seen as a privileged entity in this movie world. He has great material wealth, and feeds off of the "lower" classes of people. 

Since Ganja and Hess could not be neatly defined as blaxploitation, art house film, or any other existing genre, its critical reception was mediocre at best. Though it attempted a more nuanced social commentary than the typical fare, it was ironically doomed to obscurity due to its classification-denying qualities. 

It's very interesting to me how the environment an artwork is presented in can have just as much an effect on its meaning as its content. This phenomenon reminds me of the piece we read on grind house theatres, and how the venues themselves played as much a role as the films in terms of societal perception. If this interpretation of meaning is to be believed, then the meaning of a work must be constantly in flux, no matter if its content remains the same. I would like to dig up some contemporary articles on Ganja and Hess, and compare them with some more current ones to see where, and why the critics differ.